The Fundamental Problem (a response to those who question apostolic succession)

markmallet ^ | March 7, 2013 | Mark Mallett

[NYer]

I HAVE received a number of emails, some from Catholics who aren’t sure how to answer their “evangelical” family members, and others from fundamentalists who are certain the Catholic Church is neither biblical nor Christian. Several letters contained long explanations why they feel this Scripture means this and why they think this quote means that. After reading these letters, and considering the hours it would take to respond to them, I thought I would address instead the fundamental problem: just who exactly has the authority to interpret Scripture?

 

REALITY CHECK

But before I do, we as Catholics must admit something. From external appearances, and in reality in many churches, we do not appear to be a people alive in the Faith, burning with zeal for Christ and the salvation of souls, such as is often seen in many evangelical churches. As such, it can be difficult to convince a fundamentalist of the truth of Catholicism when the faith of Catholics so often appears dead, and our Church is bleeding from scandal after scandal. At Mass, prayers are often muttered, music is commonly bland if not corny, homilies are oftentimes uninspired, and liturgical abuses in many places have drained the Mass of all that is mystical. Worse, an outside observer might doubt that it is truly Jesus in the Eucharist, based on how Catholics file to Communion as though they were receiving a movie pass. The truth is, the Catholic Church is in a crisis. She needs to be re-evangelized, re-catechized, and renewed in the power of the Holy Spirit. And quite bluntly, she needs to be purified of the apostasy which has seeped into her ancient walls like the smoke of Satan.

But this does not mean she is a false Church. If anything, it is a sign of the enemy’s pointed and relentless attack upon the Barque of Peter.

ON WHOSE AUTHORITY?

The thought that continued to run through my mind as I read those emails was, “So, whose interpretation of the Bible is right?” With nearly 60, 000 denominations in the world and counting, all of them claiming that they have the monopoly on truth, who do you believe (the first letter I received, or the letter from the guy after that?) I mean, we could debate all day about whether this biblical text or that text means this or that. But how do we know at the end of the day what the proper interpretation is? Feelings? Tingling anointings?

Well, this is what the Bible has to say:

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the Holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. (2 Pet 1:20-21)

Scripture as a whole is a prophetic word. No Scripture is a matter of personal interpretation. So, then, whose interpretation of it is correct? This answer has serious consequences, for Jesus said, “the truth will set you free.” In order to be free, I must know the truth so I can live and abide in it. If “church A” says, for example, that divorce is permitted, but “church B” says it is not, which church is living in freedom? If “church A” teaches that you can never lose your salvation, but “church B” says you can, which church is leading souls to freedom? These are real examples, with real and perhaps eternal consequences. Yet, the answer to these questions produces a plethora of interpretations from “bible-believing” Christians who usually mean well, but completely contradict one another.

Did Christ really build a Church this random, this chaotic, this contradictory?

WHAT THE BIBLE IS—AND ISN’T

Fundamentalists say the Bible is the only source of Christian truth. Yet, there is no Scripture to support such a notion. The Bible does say:

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

Still, this says nothing about it being the sole authority or foundation of truth, only that it is inspired, and is therefore true. Furthermore, this passage refers specifically to the Old Testament since there was no “New Testament” yet. That wasn’t fully compiled until the fourth century.

The Bible does have something to say, however, about what is the foundation of truth:

You should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Tim 3:15)

The Church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of truth. It is from the Church, then, that truth emerges, that is, the Word of God. “Aha!” says the fundamentalist. “So the Word of God is the truth.” Yes, absolutely. But the Word given to the Church was spoken, not written by Christ. Jesus never wrote down a single word (and nor were His words recorded in writing until years later). The Word of God is the unwritten Truth which Jesus passed on to the Apostles. Part of this Word was written down in letters and gospels, but not all of it. How do we know? For one, Scripture itself tells us that:

There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written. (John 21:25)

We know for a fact that the revelation of Jesus was communicated in both written form, and by word of mouth.

I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face. (3 John 13-14)

This is what the Catholic Church calls Tradition: both written and oral truth. The word “tradition” comes from the Latin traditio which means “to hand down”. Oral tradition was a central part of Jewish culture and the way teachings were passed on from century to century. Of course, the fundamentalist cites Mark 7:9 or Col 2:8 to say that Scripture condemns Tradition, ignoring the fact that in those passages Jesus was condemning the numerous burdens placed on the people of Israel by the Pharisees, and not the God-given Tradition of the Old Testament. If those passages were condemning this authentic Tradition, the Bible would be contradicting itself:

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. (2 Thess 2:15)

And again,

I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. (1 Cor 11:2). Note that the Protestant King James and New American Standard versions use the word “tradition” whereas the popular NIV renders the word “teachings” which is a poor translation from the original source, the Latin Vulgate.

The Tradition which the Church guards is called the “deposit of faith”: all that Christ taught and revealed to the Apostles. They were charged with teaching this Tradition and making sure that this Deposit was faithfully passed on from generation to generation. They did so by word of mouth, and occasionally by letter or epistle.

The Church also has customs, which correctly are also called traditions, much the way people have family traditions. This would include man-made laws such as abstaining from meat on Fridays, fasting on Ash Wednesday, and even priestly celibacy—all of which can be modified or even dispensed with by the Pope who was given the power to “bind and loose” (Matt 16:19). Sacred Tradition, however—the written and unwritten Word of God—cannot be changed. In fact, since Christ revealed His Word 2000 years ago, no Pope has ever changed this Tradition, an absolute testament to the power of the Holy Spirit and the promise of Christ’s protection to guard His Church from the gates of hell (see Matt 16:18).

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION: BIBLICAL?

So we come closer to answering the fundamental problem: who, then, has the authority to interpret Scripture? The answer seems to present itself: if the Apostles were the ones who heard Christ preach, and then were charged with passing those teachings on, they should be the ones to judge whether or not any other teaching, whether oral or written, is in fact the truth. But what would happen after the Apostles died? How would truth be faithfully handed down to future generations?

We read that the Apostles charged other men to pass on this “living Tradition.” Catholics call these men the Apostle’s “successors.” But fundamentalists claim that apostolic succession was invented by men. That’s simply not what the Bible says.

After Christ ascended into Heaven, there was still a small following of disciples. In the upper room, a hundred and twenty of them gathered including the eleven remaining Apostles. Their first act was to replace Judas.

Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:26)

Justus, who wasn’t chosen over Matthias, was still a follower. But Matthias was “counted with the eleven apostles.” But why? Why replace Judas if there were more than enough followers anyway? Because Judas, like the other eleven, was given special authority by Jesus, an office which no other disciples or believers had—including His mother.

He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry… May another take his office. (Acts 1:17, 20); Note that the New Jerusalem’s foundation stones in Revelation 21:14 are inscribed with the names of twelve apostles, not eleven. Judas, obviously, was not one of them, so therefore, Matthias must be the twelfth remaining stone, completing the foundation upon whom the rest of the Church is built (cf. Eph 2:20).

After the descent of the Holy Spirit, apostolic authority was passed on through the laying on of hands (see 1 Tim 4:14; 5:22; Acts 14:23). It was a practice firmly established, as we hear from Peter’s fourth successor who reigned during the time that the Apostle John was still living:

Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . [see 1 Tim 3:1, 8; 5:17] Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. —POPE ST. CLEMENT OF ROME (80 AD), Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3

A SUCCESSION OF AUTHORITY

Jesus gave these Apostles, and obviously their successors, His own authority.

Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matt 18:18)

And again,

Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained. (John 20:22)

Jesus even says:

Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. (Luke 10:16)

Jesus says that whoever listens to these Apostles and their successors, is listening to Him! And we know that what these men teach us is the truth because Jesus promised to guide them. Addressing them privately at the Last Supper, He said:

…when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. (John 16:12-13)

This charism of the Pope and bishops to teach the truth “infallibly” has always been understood in the Church from the earliest of times:

[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. —St. Irenaeus of Lyons (189 AD), Against Heresies, 4:33:8 )

Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian… —St. Athanasius (360 AD), Four Letters to Serapion of Thmius 1, 28

THE FUNDAMENTAL ANSWER

The Bible was neither invented by man nor handed down by angels in a nice leatherbound edition. Through a process of intense discernment guided by the Holy Spirit, the successors of the Apostles determined in the fourth century which of the writings of their day were Sacred Tradition—the “Word of God”—and which were not inspired writings of the Church. Thus, the Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of St. John, the Assumption of Moses and several other books never made the cut. But 46 books of the Old Testament, and 27 for the New did comprise the “canon” of Scripture (although Protestants later dropped some books). The others were determined as not belonging to the Deposit of Faith. This was confirmed by the Bishops at the councils of Carthage (393, 397, 419 AD) and Hippo (393 AD). Ironic it is, then, that fundamentalists use the Bible, which is part of Catholic Tradition, to refute Catholicism.

All this is to say that there was no Bible for the first four centuries of the Church. So where were the apostolic teaching and testimonies to be found in all those years? Early church historian, J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes:

The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. — Early Christian Doctrines, 37

Thus, it is clear that the successors of the Apostles are the ones who have been given the authority to determine what has been handed on by Christ and what has not, based not upon their own personal judgment, but upon what they have received.

The pope isn’t an absolute sovereign, whose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary, the ministry of the pope is the guarantor of the obedience toward Christ and his word. —POPE BENEDICT XVI, Homily of May 8, 2005; San Diego Union-Tribune

Along with the pope, the bishops also share in Christ’s teaching authority to “bind and loose” (Matt 18:18). We call this teaching authority the “magisterium”.

…this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 86)

They alone have the authority to interpret the Bible through the filter of oral Tradition which they have received through apostolic succession. They alone ultimately determine whether or not Jesus literally meant that He was offering us His Body and Blood or just a mere symbol, or whether He meant that we should confess our sins to a priest. Their discernment, guided by the Holy Spirit, is based upon the Sacred Tradition which has been passed on from the beginning.

So what matters is not what you or I think a passage of Scripture means so much as what did Christ say to us? The answer is: we have to ask those to whom He said it. Scripture is not a matter of personal interpretation, but a part of the revelation of who Jesus is and what He taught and commanded us.

Pope Benedict spoke pointedly about the danger of self-anointed interpretation when he addressed the Ecumenical Meeting recently in New York:

Fundamental Christian beliefs and practices are sometimes changed within communities by so-called “prophetic actions” that are based on a hermeneutic [method of interpreting] not always consonant with the datum of Scripture and Tradition. Communities consequently give up the attempt to act as a unified body, choosing instead to function according to the idea of “local options”. Somewhere in this process the need for… communion with the Church in every age is lost, just at the time when the world is losing its bearings and needs a persuasive common witness to the saving power of the Gospel (cf. Rom 1:18-23). —POPE BENEDICT XVI, St. Joseph’s Church, New York, April 18th, 2008

Perhaps we can learn something from the humility of St. John Henry Newman (1801-1890). He is a convert to the Catholic Church, who in teaching on the end times (a subject polluted with opinion), shows the proper course of interpretation:

The opinion of any one person, even if he were the most fit to form one, could hardly be of any authority, or be worth putting forward by itself; whereas the judgment and views of the early Church claim and attract our especial regard, because for what we know they may be in part derived from traditions of the Apostles, and because they are put forward far more consistently and unanimously than those of any other set of teachers.

[count-your-change]

“The Church is Christ's bride (Ephesians 5:29) and has “no spot, wrinkle or blemish” (Ephesians 5:27). Christ also stated that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18) so how can the Church commit error? Individual clergy may commit sins, even popes commit sins because in the Church there are both “weeds and wheat” (Matthew 13:30).”

That line of reasoning could be applied to the nation of Israel in 70 A.D.

The national of Israel had a long history, holy writings, tradition, ritual, a well organized priesthood, a beautiful temple, martyrs and yet none of that preserved them in the face of the spiritual rot that permeated the entire nation.

Christians weren't told to evangelize or reform the nation but to get out as it's end approached.

If Israel was God's nation how could it commit error?

[Salvation]

Reading the whole chapter sheds light on the last verse.

2 Timothy 3

---

1	But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress.
2	For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,
3	inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good,
4	treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
5	holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people.
6	For among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses,
7	who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth.
8	As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;
9	but they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.
10	Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness,
11	my persecutions, my sufferings, what befell me at Antioch, at Ico'nium, and at Lystra, what persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me.
12	Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,
13	while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.
14	But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
15	and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16	All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17	that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

[Salvation]

Why do Catholics always talk about the Early Church Fathers (Apostolic Fathers)?[Ecumenical]
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Apostolic Fathers of the Church
The Early Church Fathers on Apostolic Succession - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Early Church Fathers on The Primacy of Peter/Rome (Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)

[boatbums]

If anyone deserves to wear tinfoil hats it's Catholics! This article is chock full of all the typical Roman Catholic propaganda and twisted Scripture passages that there is scarcely a paragraph that hasn't already been shot full of holes in previous RF threads. Hasn't the Religion Forum been monopolized enough the last few weeks with all the hourly Pope news that this old stuff has to be brought up again? Here's just a sample:

The thought that continued to run through my mind as I read those emails was, “So, whose interpretation of the Bible is right?” With nearly 60, 000 denominations in the world and counting, all of them claiming that they have the monopoly on truth, who do you believe (the first letter I received, or the letter from the guy after that?) I mean, we could debate all day about whether this biblical text or that text means this or that. But how do we know at the end of the day what the proper interpretation is? Feelings? Tingling anointings?

Sixty thousand denominations now???!!! Can you see why nothing else this guy says can be trusted? All of them claiming a "monopoly on the truth"??? I wonder, did you hunt around and dig up the most insulting one you could find? I sincerely hope NOBODY reads this article thinking the person who wrote it knows what he is talking about. He doesn't!

[boatbums]

Thank you.

[boatbums]

Thank you. Well said!

[boatbums]

Let's not forget that these purported writings of early church leaders were NOT written in English. Therefore, they are translations of what they wrote. The Roman Catholic Church makes a habit of back-filling their view of history into ancient writings. What were called “offices” of the church do not necessarily correspond to those that exist today. Rusty is correct about there being no office of “priest” in the early church that had specific duties of offering sacrifices as the Jewish priesthood did. Such a role only gradually came about starting in the mid to late fourth century and developing further beyond then. It definitely was NOT an office in the first century. There were elders, deacons and overseers. Views differ on the Greek words used for them in Scripture and their interpretation into English.

[Daffy]

“Those in the Catholic Church need to beware.”

Good advice. The Scripture quoted appears to be from the NAB, which I understand is since revised, and with which I have major disagreement. You may compare the Douay-Rheims for 2Tim 3:17 with the one quoted in the essay: (notice the modern strive for gender neutrality)

Douay-Rheims, Challoner (19th century)
17. that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

Douay-Rheims, Challoner, Confraternity (20th century)
17. that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work.

New American Bible (USA) post Vatican II (1986)
17. so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

The Wikipedia entry for the Douay-Rheims is comprehensive and worth a look. They have a few comparisons of translations in early bibles. You may wish to check-out the link to St. Jerome, who translated Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic into Latin in the fourth century.

[Daffy]

“Sixty thousand denominations now . . .”

I thought that was a bit much too, thinking that thirty thousand is the correct number. Or maybe it was thirty thousand just in the USA; he’s speaking world wide.

[stonehouse01]

Great post - thank you.

The fact that our Lord purposely did not Himself write down His own teachings clearly indicates that He did not intend His followers to ONLY follow Scripture, that is only go by that which was written. This precendent was set by the Jewish rabbis (teachers) in that for centuries their teachings were oral AND TRADITION based - the Old Testament wasn’t written down for many centuries.

Our Jewish ancestors did not subscribe to the false “bible” alone method for teaching and passing down the faith, and Jesus did not change this concept. It was protestants many centuries later who falsely added this idea of sola scriptura onto things. It is a heretical concept and was never practiced in biblical antiquity and is a man made construct supposedly “found” in the bible, even though the bible itself says the very opposite, in the verses laid out in the article.

Again, thanks.

[NYer]

Thank you for the post and ping. Oral tradition, one would suppose, comes with risks. Last year, however, I was quite surprised to factually discover that an oral history of my great, great grandparents was indeed true. Since it had been passed down from one generation to another, with no written record, I had only that tradition to begin an ancestral search. Much to my amazement, everything I had been told proved to be true.

[jjotto]

There’s the story about playing a game of ‘telephone’. A teacher gives one student some private information and tells him to privately relay it to the student next to him, who in turn privately relays it to the next student and so on. The last student in the class of course gets the information completely wrong.

But ‘oral tradition’ is nothing like that.

A group of people share an experience and then spend the rest of their lives having public meetings reminding each other of the details, making their own private notes and telling others, especially their own children, about what they had experienced.

As the first generation passes on, the extended family gives monetary awards, leadership and other honors to those who excel at remembering and teaching the original information. Competition keeps the information fresh and complete because of the great reward.

[boatbums]

“Sixty thousand denominations now . . .”
I thought that was a bit much too, thinking that thirty thousand is the correct number. Or maybe it was thirty thousand just in the USA; he’s speaking world wide.

If you are at all genuinely interested in what the number might actually be (nowhere near even 30k), here is a good source: The 33,000 Denominations Myth.

Funny thing about this myth is that it seems no matter how many times such a statement is disproved, it pops up again as if no one ever knew any better. Hopefully, you might not be among them once you read the link.

[boatbums]

Oral tradition, one would suppose, comes with risks. Last year, however, I was quite surprised to factually discover that an oral history of my great, great grandparents was indeed true. Since it had been passed down from one generation to another, with no written record, I had only that tradition to begin an ancestral search. Much to my amazement, everything I had been told proved to be true.

Yes, oral tradition does indeed come with risks. Tell me, without the written records turning up in your ancestral search, would you have had the same confidence in your family history that you did before you researched it? Didn't the fact that there WAS a written record confirm that what you had been told all your life was accurate? The written word of God is no different. That is why we can base the rule of our faith upon the Bible, because it IS Divinely-inspired sacred writings spelling out the basis of our faith.

[stonehouse01]

NYer’s point was even a “secular” oral tradition can be accurate.

The epic Greek poems that had been passed down orally proved to be correct. Three thousand years ago these epic poems were passed down through the bards. Troy exists confirmed by recent archeology.

The written word of God was followed by incompete attempts to write about it.

[boatbums]

NYer’s point was even a “secular” oral tradition can be accurate. The epic Greek poems that had been passed down orally proved to be correct. Three thousand years ago these epic poems were passed down through the bards. Troy exists confirmed by recent archeology. The written word of God was followed by incompete attempts to write about it.

Sure, they can be, but when we are talking about the revealed word of God and not just how great, great granny met great, great grandpa, isn't written a better and more sure conduit for truth? Paul and Peter both wrote letters to the churches and they were fully expecting their instructions to be obeyed, retained and passed down. In fact, they explicitly instructed the believers to cut off fellowship with those who refused to follow their teachings in the letters.

The written word is the back-up, so to speak, for the spoken word. That is why many of the early church leaders exhorted believers to NOT accept teachings which did not have the Scriptures as their source. Irenaeus was one:

Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him. (Against Heresies s III.5.1)

Irenaeus states further: Our faith is steadfast, unfeigned, and the only true one, having clear proof from these Scriptures...(Ibid., Against Heresies III.21.3).

In the first place, we prove from the authoritative Scriptures that all the things which have been mentioned, visible and invisible, have been made by one God. For these men are not more to be depended on than the Scriptures...(Ibid., Against Heresies II.30.6)

Nobody is disparaging the role of tradition in our faith, just that the written word is God's objective authority by which all rule of faith truth claims should be measured. Are there issues not mentioned in Scripture that we seek to know and understand? Sure, but we have assurance that, what is needful for us to know to be saved and to live our lives in faith, is found in the Holy Scriptures and we have been given the very Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. Irenaeus also said:

If, therefore, even with respect to creation, there are some things [the knowledge of] which belongs only to God, and others which come within the range of our own knowledge, what ground is there for complaint, if, in regard to those things which we investigate in the Scriptures (which are throughout spiritual), we are able by the grace of God to explain some of them, while we must leave others in the hands of God, and that not only in the present world, but also in that which is to come, so that God should for ever teach, and man should for ever learn the things taught him by God?...If, for instance, any one asks, ‘What was God doing before He made the world?’ we reply that the answer to such a question lies with God Himself. For that this world was formed perfect by God, receiving a beginning in time, the Scriptures teach us; but no Scripture reveals to us what God was employed about before this event. The answer therefore to that question remains with God, and it is not proper for us to aim at bringing forward foolish, rash, and blasphemous suppositions [in reply to it]; so, as by one’s imagining that he has discovered the origin of matter, he should in reality set aside God Himself who made all things. But we shall not be wrong if we affirm the same thing also concerning the substance of matter, that God produced it. For we have learned from the Scriptures that God holds the supremacy over all things. But whence or in what way He produced it, neither has Scripture anywhere declared; nor does it become us to conjecture, so as, in accordance with our own opinions, to form endless conjectures concerning God, but we should leave such knowledge in the hands of God Himself (Ibid., Against Heresies II.28.3; II.28.7).

From The Church Fathers and the Authority and Sufficiency of Scripture:

In addition, Irenaeus states that the meaning of Scripture is not obscure. He says it can be easily apprehended by those who are willing to receive the teaching of Scripture as a whole, for Scripture itself clearly reveals its main message:

Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them; and since they proclaim that one only God, to the exclusion of all others, formed all things by His word, whether visible or invisible, heavenly or earthly, in the water or under the earth, as I have shown from the very words of Scripture; and since the very system of creation to which we belong testifies, by what falls under our notice, that one Being made and governs it—those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such a clear demonstration, and will not behold the light of the announcement [made to them]; but they put fetters upon themselves, and every one of them imagines, by means of their obscure interpretations of the parables, that he has found out a God of his own. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies II.27.2.)

To Irenaeus, then, Scripture is the full and final revelation given by God to man through the apostles. It is inspired and authoritative and a source of proof for discerning truth and error. It is Scripture that has final and sufficient authority and is the ground and pillar of the Church’s faith. The Scriptures are both materially and formally sufficient.

But the question arises, Did not Irenaeus also appeal to tradition as a source of authority? And did he not speak of the authority of the Church? The answer to both questions is yes. But this affirmation does not negate the fact that, for Irenaeus, Scripture is the final authority in all matters of faith. This becomes clear upon examination of his teaching on tradition and ecclesiastical authority.

This, to me, is the true definition of sola Scriptura. It is the final authority in all matters of the Christian faith.

[stonehouse01]

“...the written word is the back up so to speak for the spoken word,

Perhaps it is the opposite - since antiquity had no written word. Perhaps the purest form of Christ’s teachings in His life itself- no (written words) describe it properly

[boatbums]

Perhaps it is the opposite - since antiquity had no written word.

How far back are you going with "antiquity"? Ever since Moses, there was the written word and he dates back to 1400 B.C. Many of the accounts happened long before Moses was born, but God-breathed truth was always correctly revealed to the writers of Scripture no matter when they lived. God had His prophets, as well, that "spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit". Going back that far into antiquity, we need a source that is not susceptible to legend and myth. That is why we can have assurance that what God has revealed AND preserved in Scripture IS the truth and every word of God is trustworthy.

Perhaps the purest form of Christ’s teachings in His life itself- no (written words) describe it properly.

The purest form of Christ's teachings IS His life AS it was recorded in Scripture by the very people who walked with him for three years and who were led by the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus promised would bring to their remembrance everything he had taught them and who would lead them into all truth as the Holy Spirit revealed more truth than what Jesus did before he ascended. The word of God is "quick and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword. Piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." There is power in the word and that is also how we can know that what we read in Scripture came from God. It has power to change hearts. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation for everyone that believes. The gospel as it was enscripturated for us by the very same Apostles and disciples that personally knew Jesus.

I think it is suspect when people try to downplay the importance of the Bible in the life of a Christian or try to usurp its teachings for something men developed later. I will continue to trust God rather than man. I don't think you can go wrong as long as you understand that.

[stonehouse01]

Moses relied on oral tradition for the Commandments.

It comes back to the person to trust. Christians trust Christ. FIRST, we must trust His example. THEN we see what was written.

That is why catholics look to the works (of Jesus) then follow Him. A rabbi (teacher) shows his students what to do.

[stonehouse01]

:...I think it is suspect when people downplay the importance of the bible ...”

That is an assumption. The bible is not downplayed, ever by true catholics. Men, i.e. Martin Luther was the man made Ursurper. Martin Luther changed it up - may he rot in Hell. He made it too easy.

PS - study St. Jerome